Quentin Rayner

daviesee

Vesterberg wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The comment by Mr Rayner was incredibly insensitive and inciteful

Really???, I mean really, really??? He was questioning why TT's are held on busy roads such as this - giving the respondent the opportunity to explain and therefore enlighten the viewing public. He already apologised for his tax faux pas (see email). Cut the man some slack god damn it.

No I will not cut him slack. It was a stupid uninformed question. End of.

You can question whether TT should be held on an open road but from a driver's perspective what is the difference between a TT cyclist and a commuter?
Especially when the TT rider actually has a rear light on for this very reason.

mybreakfastconsisted

daviesee wrote:

Vesterberg wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The comment by Mr Rayner was incredibly insensitive and inciteful

Really???, I mean really, really??? He was questioning why TT's are held on busy roads such as this - giving the respondent the opportunity to explain and therefore enlighten the viewing public. He already apologised for his tax faux pas (see email). Cut the man some slack god damn it.

No I will not cut him slack. It was a stupid uninformed question. End of.

from a driver's perspective what is the difference between a TT cyclist and a commuter?

The crap that Rayner came out with could, quite possibly, make my commute more dangerous. It only takes one meat head driver..

evil_breakfast

Vesterberg wrote:

This is more of an issue than some perceived slight by Mr Rayner.

The BBC has an obligation, by royal charter, to inform and educate in an accurate and impartial fashion.
You seem to think that usage of the phrase 'Road Tax' in the tone expressed is informative and accurate; and will not complicate further the already fragile relationship that cyclists have with drivers, many of which do not cycle.

Vesterberg

'by royal charter' - well I do declare! Now I've been told. So we now have issues with the man's 'tone'.

Dear me. I cannot bear the pomposity any longer. Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a road cyclist.

evil_breakfast

Vesterberg wrote:

'by royal charter' - well I do declare! Now I've been told. So we now have issues with the man's 'tone'.

Dear me. I cannot bear the pomposity any longer. Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a road cyclist.

now?
I thought this thread started about Quentin Rayners tone?

pages 2 - 4 If you're interested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/fi ... harter.pdf

Vesterberg

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

But to say after a man has been killed that, effectively, nobody should complain is shocking.

He said nothing of the sort. See what I mean about precious and over sensitive cyclists? Stop following the mob.

Tom Butcher

Vesterberg - whilst I'm not saying that QR should be hung out to dry it's a bit more than being misinformed about Road Tax and Vehicle Excise Duty isn't it ? I mean how does a discussion on a cyclist being run down and killed end up with him asking about road tax - even if he was giving the opportunity for the guy to refute that often made comment what is the possible relevance ?

Unless the youtube clip misses out something that throws a different light on it raising road tax does smack a bit of saying OK so a man has died but cyclists get away with all sorts - I mean they don't even pay to use the roads in the first place.

shouldbeinbed

When various car manufacturers offer 12 months free road tax in their advertising blurb, and the likes of What Car & Parkers blithely bandy around Road Tax on their VED pages, the problem of ingraining this idea further into an already prejudiced average motorists psyche goes deeper than a reporter doing inadequate research before a short piece to camera on a local news broadcast. We could argue the merits of linking it on here as it gives it the oxygen of greater publicity and, to a neutral observer, we're hardly a united and dispassionate mob discussing it are we. The fact is at the end of the day is we're all there by right and it should be an easy win of an answer to an ill informed (non) question

so for the uninitiated that may have got this far: http://ipayroadtax.com/

also knowing the A50, its a cracking road for a TT; long, straight, few roundabouts or junctions etc , all of the things that make it very easy to cycle (or drive) very fast for long stretches on - The problem with it is that it is conducive to a creeping lack of concentration since there is so little to see or do to keep you alert.Prticularly driving, it is easy to inadvertently build up more speed than you realise & find yourself coming up behind slower moving vehicles unexpectedly fast, potentially causing misjudgement from both of the relative closing distance/speed.

completely laying aside the road tax issue: I've seen unsegregated TTer's on there early one Sunday morning and wondered if they were far braver or far more stupid than me. It is one of not many roads that I wouldn't cycle on, in any context, by choice.

mybreakfastconsisted

Vesterberg wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

But to say after a man has been killed that, effectively, nobody should complain is shocking.

He said nothing of the sort. See what I mean about precious and over sensitive cyclists? Stop following the mob.

Why do you think I should "justify"- Mr Rayner's exact words- cycling to work?

Frank the tank

Brakeless wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

TTing on A roads is a dangerous persuit, so are a lot of other sports/passtimes. Mountain climbing, parachuting, skiing, the list goes on. People persue these sports at their own risk IMHO.

Off at a tangent time, if TTing on a A road goes t1ts up no one else has to risk their life to come and rescue you, unlike mountaineering for example. Also over the last twenty or so years I would say more people have been killed watching football than participating in TTs/cycling.

Your thoughts on mountaineers being rescued by people risking thier lives is as ill informed as the road tax argument. Every member of a mountain rescue team is also a mountaineer and they go out on rescues voluntarilly. The helicopters are actually there to rescue downed pilots,however they have to log flight hours and 'civilian' rescues are part of this and they view it as some of the best training possible.

Sorry to hijack the thread but the reckless mounatineer stuff is the same type of daily mail rubbish as all cyclists jump red lights and should pay road tax.

I'm quite aware that people that participate in mountain rescue are volounteers and no doubt they find mountaineering fullfilling and indeed rescuing someone must be very gratifying. However you, or no one else come to that, cannot argue they're not risking their own lives in order to save others, much like a lifeboat man.

mybreakfastconsisted

Some cyclists (myself included) have been victims of intimidation, abuse and even assault from motorists. Whilst these individuals are a minority, their behaviour is encouraged by the myth that they have a greater right to the road than other road users like cyclists, a myth which has no basis in reality. It is completely irresponsible for a BBC programme to encourage this behaviour by perpetuating the myth and validating it with the question:

“[Cyclists] don’t pay any road tax, how do you justify using the highway?”

This sort of questioning would be crossing a line for a current affairs programme, even if it wasn’t based on a non-existent road-funding scheme. The non-existence of road tax makes it completely inexcusable.

All of this discussion of the technicalities of how taxes pay for infrastructure is somewhat missing the point, a person died because of the negligence of another road user. Instead of treating the death of an innocent person through the actions of another person with the respect such an incident deserved, it was used by BBC East Midlands and its reporter, Quentin Rayner, as a platform for anti-cyclist bigoted. What an absolute fucking disgrace.

http://chestercycling.wordpress.com/201 ... -bloomers/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk0p0iE4tr0